[DWR]

Thanks Dan. That's exactly the kind of info that helps us understand what is going on.

[tuikku]

Originally Posted by Dan@BPC

Here's some data you guys have been waiting for, maf flow rates

Red line, stock
Green line, stock turbos with abc delete and 35psi
Blue line, bpc hybrid turbo setup abc delete and 40psi

As you can see the hybrid turbos max the maf reading out halfway through the pull

Congratulations, you have had exactly the numbers, that I told earlier. (~110mg fuel rate)
But for that result, you do not really need any hardware mods.
I got very same numbers with only remapping and 2,5 bar (36 psi) boost.
With 3 bar boost and cp-pump mod you get a possibility to reach ~450hp level, but even that can be done with orig turbos also.
Anywhow - horrible smoke and lots of heat stress.
Orig piezo injectors flows quite a well.
Good result, you got everything out that is possible in this case.

If you just do the same airflow test with orig turbo´s, you might notice how easy it is to get the airflow mass out of maf capacity ...

[DWR]

Originally Posted by tuikku

Congratulations, you have had exactly the numbers, that I told earlier. (~110mg fuel rate)
But for that result, you do not really need any hardware mods.
I got very same numbers with only remapping and 2,5 bar (36 psi) boost.
With 3 bar boost and cp-pump mod you get a possibility to reach ~450hp level, but even that can be done with orig turbos also.
Anywhow - horrible smoke and lots of heat stress.
Orig piezo injectors flows quite a well.
Good result, you got everything out that is possible in this case.

If you just do the same airflow test with orig turbo´s, you might notice how easy it is to get the airflow mass out of maf capacity ...

The red curve is with the original turbo, but I guess you are saying to take it to 36 psi.
Yes, I think some have seen the MAF peg at boost levels around there.
With intake mods and stock turbo, it will peg the MAF below 36 psi!

[Bob@BPC]

Originally Posted by tuikku

Congratulations, you have had exactly the numbers, that I told earlier. (~110mg fuel rate)
But for that result, you do not really need any hardware mods.
I got very same numbers with only remapping and 2,5 bar (36 psi) boost.
With 3 bar boost and cp-pump mod you get a possibility to reach ~450hp level, but even that can be done with orig turbos also.
Anywhow - horrible smoke and lots of heat stress.
Orig piezo injectors flows quite a well.
Good result, you got everything out that is possible in this case.

If you just do the same airflow test with orig turbo´s, you might notice how easy it is to get the airflow mass out of maf capacity ...

Here's the difference you have yet to post base numbers that your car made stock. So its kinda hard to judge what you are truly making. Another thing, its an apple to orange deal, We are using a dynojet 224x and what kind of dyno are you making your pulls on?, different dynos can read higher or lower numbers. What we want to see is the gain and not peak dyno numbers.

[petey_highboost]

Originally Posted by iaknown

Unless of course you can't get the car to hook for a quarter to half of the track...which it seems is what some are up against now. So then there are other factors involved complicating the comparison, like who wants to set their car up strictly for the quarter mile and who doesn't. I'd hate to give up my car's handling for that as well.

Sounds like NC335D is going that route though. I'm also looking forward to seeing his progress....

Sounds like Bzken is on board too? The more the merrier!

Well usually a car that has a worse 60ft spinning will have a higher MPH then a car would have an ideal "good" 60ft

Well see what I can get this thing to run with the stock turbos on fuel only

[petey_highboost]

Originally Posted by Bob@BPC

If you have any questions about our setup or tuning processes or turbos, you guys are more than welcome to ask, I've talked with many of you over the phone and via email. If you guys want more data, I'll have NC335D's car at the shop next week. Just let me know what you want to see.

Now, onto comparing the track to the dyno to show what makes more power is kinda of an odd thing, I mostly use the dyno as a tuning tool and yes, taking the car to the track is great way to display how fast the car is, but there are so many factors that can sway those numbers in the end. (apple to oranges). So this is just my opinion on the subject.

The dyno has less variables that can effect power numbers than the track will ever have, Just to list a few: Track prep, weather, altitude, tires, tire pressure, suspension, driver, gear ratios, weight of vehicle, aero addons and so on. And now both engine and chassis dynos: dyno type, correction factor, gear ratio (this can be corrected with software) weather (this also can be corrected with software) Tire pressure, altitude (and once again, this can be corrected). To really see the effects, go to youtube, look up stock car, (something with a power adder) and search for video of it running the strip in Colorado and then look up the same car running at Moroso in west palms in FL.

Correction factors are used to keep numbers consistent. Just as an example, I dyno'd my F30 328i in the summer uncorrected it made 262rwhp, corrected it made 259rwhp SAE. In the fall before our dyno day, the car laid down 278rwhp uncorrected and corrected, it was 260rwhp SAE with no changes.

So my point is you cannot really display what the cars true power is with just a rip down the drag strip. Once again, This is my opinion on the subject.

Well what I'm trying to say is that if you have 2 335D's that both weigh the same and one car MPHs faster than the other car, the car that has the faster mph will put down more power on the dyno

Jess should be sending my ecu out to you on tues

[TDIwyse]

Originally Posted by tuikku

...
Your result is so good, that you must use some kind of additive.
Your transmission is zf6hp28, it seems to last very high torques, ++800nm easily, here are many of them.

Yes, lots of water/methanol in a ~2D map that is setup to start ramping around the point the torque curve starts to drop and increases with rpm. So injection rates increase with rpm at full fueling as well as fuel pressure sensor manipulation. This has worked exceedingly well to control EGT's and create really dense air going into the cylinders even with the stock turbo's, and also keeps the peak torque from going crazy and extends torque into the upper rpm's.

Also, I've found the external wastegate to be very beneficial for venting lots of exhaust manifold pressure and controlling turbine drive pressures and shaping the intake manifold pressure curve. I haven't been using the DDE controlled internal wastegate at all since this Fall.

Interesting info on the transmissions. I'm still cautious when applying the skinny peddle at low/mid rpm's.

[TDIwyse]

Originally Posted by Dan@BPC

Here's some data you guys have been waiting for, maf flow rates

Red line, stock
Green line, stock turbos with abc delete and 35psi
Blue line, bpc hybrid turbo setup abc delete and 40psi

As you can see the hybrid turbos max the maf reading out halfway through the pull

Thanks for doing this test and also validating the MAF clipping. This is the main reason why I worked to develop an alternate way to measure air flow beyond the OEM capacity.

Here's an example of what I'm seeing, and it's similar to your results for where the OEM MAF clips.

The MAF responds a bit slower than the pressure sensor, so on the 4th gear full fueling test it lags a bit. But I do a mild 4th/5th up hill pull, so it's slow enough to keep the MAF response inline with the pressure sensor, before the big pull. I'm showing that as well as the 4th gear pull with the OEM MAF data overlaid on the pressure sensor based MAF calculation. The OEM MAF response seems to get a little "soft" as it approaches 44.1 lb/min "clipping" point.

[petey_highboost]

Originally Posted by TDIwyse

Yes, lots of water/methanol in a ~2D map that is setup to start ramping around the point the torque curve starts to drop and increases with rpm. So injection rates increase with rpm at full fueling as well as fuel pressure sensor manipulation. This has worked exceedingly well to control EGT's and create really dense air going into the cylinders even with the stock turbo's, and also keeps the peak torque from going crazy and extends torque into the upper rpm's.

Also, I've found the external wastegate to be very beneficial for venting lots of exhaust manifold pressure and controlling turbine drive pressures and shaping the intake manifold pressure curve. I haven't been using the DDE controlled internal wastegate at all since this Fall.

Interesting info on the transmissions. I'm still cautious when applying the skinny peddle at low/mid rpm's.

Do you have the wastegate flap welded shut?

What wastegate are you using? And what spring do you have in the gate

[DWR]

Originally Posted by TDIwyse

Thanks for doing this test and also validating the MAF clipping. This is the main reason why I worked to develop an alternate way to measure air flow beyond the OEM capacity.

Here's an example of what I'm seeing, and it's similar to your results for where the OEM MAF clips.

The MAF responds a bit slower than the pressure sensor, so on the 4th gear full fueling test it lags a bit. But I do a mild 4th/5th up hill pull, so it's slow enough to keep the MAF response inline with the pressure sensor, before the big pull. I'm showing that as well as the 4th gear pull with the OEM MAF data overlaid on the pressure sensor based MAF calculation. The OEM MAF response seems to get a little "soft" as it approaches 44.1 lb/min "clipping" point.

TDIwyse, can you share with everyone what the lambda value is at the highest airflow level? I think that would be interesting, in light of the airbox mod. Thanks.

[tuikku]

Originally Posted by Bob@BPC

Here's the difference you have yet to post base numbers that your car made stock. So its kinda hard to judge what you are truly making. Another thing, its an apple to orange deal, We are using a dynojet 224x and what kind of dyno are you making your pulls on?, different dynos can read higher or lower numbers. What we want to see is the gain and not peak dyno numbers.

Yes, you're absolutely right. I just cannot thought when the car was still the standard that I would need here to prove anything. And I still don´t need because I am not selling anything here.
But that do not change anything, if the stock power is 5hp more or less.
I "predicted" the result correctly in advance because it is a known truth here.
The easiest way to have more fuel, is change the pump from some earlier E60/61 or E46, 330/335 with solenoid injectors, both goes.
Try and you will see, am I wrong.

[tuikku]

Originally Posted by TDIwyse

Yes, lots of water/methanol in a ~2D map that is setup to start ramping around the point the torque curve starts to drop and increases with rpm. So injection rates increase with rpm at full fueling as well as fuel pressure sensor manipulation. This has worked exceedingly well to control EGT's and create really dense air going into the cylinders even with the stock turbo's, and also keeps the peak torque from going crazy and extends torque into the upper rpm's.

Also, I've found the external wastegate to be very beneficial for venting lots of exhaust manifold pressure and controlling turbine drive pressures and shaping the intake manifold pressure curve. I haven't been using the DDE controlled internal wastegate at all since this Fall.

Interesting info on the transmissions. I'm still cautious when applying the skinny peddle at low/mid rpm's.

Try even higher fuel pressures.
You are now using max ~1800bar, or something like that.
Piezo injectors works well even with ~2000bar pressure.
Pressure rising gives a very powerful effect to higher rpm`s.
Every result over 400hp is made with rised fuel pressure, it is the only way to have real power to higher rpm`s.
So, rise it more => you get more.

Can I ask, what benefit you get by measuring airflow like that ?
Only value, that is important, is 1600mg, or more/stroke.
100mg fuel/stroke x Lambda 1,1 x 14,6 = ~1600mg air/stroke.
As long as you are above that, everything is certainly ok.
How do you recognize that ? => no visual smoke, when you look from mirror.

Little smoke is also ok, but only short time.
Smoke = heat stress

If you haven´t measured EGP values till now, do a favour to yoursef, don´t even start. You scared.

[Bob@BPC]

Originally Posted by tuikku

Yes, you're absolutely right. I just cannot thought when the car was still the standard that I would need here to prove anything. And I still don´t need because I am not selling anything here.
But that do not change anything, if the stock power is 5hp more or less.
I "predicted" the result correctly in advance because it is a known truth here.
The easiest way to have more fuel, is change the pump from some earlier E60/61 or E46, 330/335 with solenoid injectors, both goes.
Try and you will see, am I wrong.

Im not trying to be rude by any means, but you are claiming that you picked up almost 200 rwhp with just a tune and nothing else. Im just trying to let you know it does matter what the base numbers are, We used to rent a dyno before we got our own and it read 50+more hp than the one we currently have now.

[tuikku]

.
421-272 = ~149hp more stock engine
481-272 = ~209hp with turbo mod, not stock any more, but not many mods.
You can do that also, I don´t lie, if you mean that.

I have told honestly all mods, exept one, I forgot "egr block kit".
If you are willing to get any improvement that matters from your hybrid turbo´s, you must do your homework better.

I would like to hear your explanation about what benefit you get when you put compressor wheel to smaller turbo ?
And that is very clear to me, that you don´t get any real benefit by changing bigger compressor to bigger turbo. It do not give any more air flow. You must change the turbine first. Only if you get more airflow through the engine, you get possibility to have more fuel burned and more power.
Till that, stock engine gives ~same power.

[Bob@BPC]

Originally Posted by tuikku

.
421-272 = ~149hp more stock engine
481-272 = ~209hp with turbo mod, not stock any more, but not many mods.
You can do that also, I don´t lie, if you mean that.

I have told honestly all mods, exept one, I forgot "egr block kit".
If you are willing to get any improvement that matters from your hybrid turbo´s, you must do your homework better.

I would like to hear your explanation about what benefit you get when you put compressor wheel to smaller turbo ?
And that is very clear to me, that you don´t get any real benefit by changing bigger compressor to bigger turbo. It do not give any more air flow. You must change the turbine first. Only if you get more airflow through the engine, you get possibility to have more fuel burned and more power.
Till that, stock engine gives ~same power.

Never said you were, I was just letting you know your base numbers could be 270hp or higher, and a stock 335d we have dyno'd avg around 230 - 240 on the highend, I was just asking for more data. We have posted already stock flow stock vs turbos, and you can clearly see below the switch from the small turbo to the larger one the increase in power and torque.

[Bob@BPC]

And one last look at flow, here was a customer that had just the larger turbo modded vs the flow of our setup turbos

[tuikku]

.
You do not answer to my question, benefit.

First, you cannot measure it like that.
Bigger EGP forses the flap open to bigger turbo and increases the flow.
Only way to measure the real effrect, is shut down the other, like I did.

Ok, you get more low-end airflow.
Where can I see it, not in your torque curve.

My earlier post:

Originally Posted by tuikku

.
It is winter here, so it is impossible to make realistic road test now.
But I have tried.
The follow is driving with winter tires, "studded tires" - is that right, hope you understand.
Anyway, very very very slippery. But something after all.
After careful acceleration, I got that kind of curves.
Torq is ok, but power not, a small difference about that, it is winter.
0-200 with winter tires takes ~16s, I am not any expert for that, the start is difficult ...

This is with orig smaller turbo and winter wheels, it´s cold in here.
After I get my pump mod done, I will increase the power +500 and torq +1000nm.

[tuikku]

.

This BMW, that I have now, is my 5th 400hp cdi, (3xMB and 2xBMW)
I have also MB E 320cdi in my front yard, modded.

Maybe you like to read about BMW, that I build earlier.
530d, it was with one vnt turbo 218hp orig.
The vnt turbo in that car was also build in accordance with my ideas. (turbine !!)
The first turbos made my good friend in Austria Alex/Z-Turbo.au.
Lately they can be shopped here in Finland also.
After few mods I get very nice numbers, and works also well.
I have now remapped ”few” similar cars.


Mods:
Hybrid turbo gt2260, made by Anton Murola/Hevosvoima.com
535d injectors
Very big cooler
Bigger downpipe, egr/dpf/cat removed.
Egr delete kit
Stiffer valve springs, gift from Alex
(Also modded transm.+Quaife)
Softw my own.

[TDIwyse]

Originally Posted by tuikku

Try even higher fuel pressures.
You are now using max ~1800bar, or something like that.
Piezo injectors works well even with ~2000bar pressure.
Pressure rising gives a very powerful effect to higher rpm`s.
Every result over 400hp is made with rised fuel pressure, it is the only way to have real power to higher rpm`s.
So, rise it more => you get more.

Can I ask, what benefit you get by measuring airflow like that ?
Only value, that is important, is 1600mg, or more/stroke.
100mg fuel/stroke x Lambda 1,1 x 14,6 = ~1600mg air/stroke.
As long as you are above that, everything is certainly ok.
How do you recognize that ? => no visual smoke, when you look from mirror.

Little smoke is also ok, but only short time.
Smoke = heat stress

If you haven´t measured EGP values till now, do a favour to yoursef, don´t even start. You scared.

Thanks again for your participation here. There's been a fantastic flurry of ideas and knowledge being shared here.

I'm allowing the fuel pressure sensor distortion to go as high as I need to get to the AFR's I want before it appears that peak power starts going down. It's now lower than I've used in the past as I've found increasing the water/methanol in the upper rpm's is more effective and helps more effectively utilize the diesel fuel that's going into the cyclinders. However, this is one area where I think having more airflow would be beneficial. But if it takes excessive amounts of exhaust manifold pressure to drive the turbo for more boost, then there's a point of diminishing returns.

Also, I do tend to agree with many of your ideas on the exhaust side bottleneck of the turbo. The external wastegate has freed up more top end in my measurements even without huge boost numbers.

The reason I wanted to be able to measure airflow was to validate mods to the intake/exhaust for getting more air. And I wanted to get measured numbers I could use in engine simulators (like Borg Warner's Matchbot) to validate some of the power measurement methods I have been using.

Regarding injection amounts. Since I'm altering the rail pressure sensor in certain rpm ranges, the reported fuel injection rate the DDE "thinks" it's injecting is no longer valid. Plus, I'm injecting various amounts of water/methanol, which affects the total fuel going into the cylinders which is outside the DDE's control. I do use an analog flow gauge on the water/methanol injection to be able to know what's going into the system.

With the use of water/methanol, I'm able to keep making power even as AFR's fall below 14.6:1 while keeping really good EGT's. It does get visually smokey at 4600 rpm, but it's much less so than many of the crazy powerful/fast diesel trucks... Also, the EGP's are held into a range that I "think" is still safe.

Example of EGP's, EGT's, Boost, IAT's (although this one is suspect as the sensor is close to the main water/methanol injector and the mix has very little time to evaporate and lower temps before the sensor ... so it'll be significantly lower than what this is showing) for the end of a 1/4 mile pull this Fall. I "think" these look "good".

But I'd be interested in feedback from others with more experience than myself. This is the first vehicle I've tried modifying with my own methods and ideas and do not have a lot of experience in this area.

[edit: I forgot to mention that I am also using Jarek's tuning as a "base" for the other stuff I'm doing for all the data I've shared in this thread so far]

[TDIwyse]

Originally Posted by DWR

TDIwyse, can you share with everyone what the lambda value is at the highest airflow level? I think that would be interesting, in light of the airbox mod. Thanks.

So, on the last datasets I had before winter hit, I had stopped logging AFR to increase sampling rate speed. So for the last MAF plot I shared above, I do not have AFR for that one. But from previous logs it seemed to be crossing the 14.6:1 point in the lower 4000 rpm range and dropping to ~13.X at 4600 rpm. The X depended somewhat on ambient conditions (cold and high pressure would give larger values, warm and low pressure lower values). With the water/methanol it seemed to me that peak power wasn't hurting until dropping into the 12's. But that got to be very smokey.

I would be interested in others experience with how they see AFR's impacting power with various modifications.

[tuikku]

.
The best lambda value to burn diesel, is of course 14,6.
But these cdi´s do not work properly any moore, too much smoke.

~Visible smoke "line" is lambda ~1,1 = AFR 16
You don´t see any smoke from mirrors, there are, but you don´t see, so it is not visible.

Best power comes, when lambda is ~1,05 => AFR about 15
Then you can clearly see thin haze from mirrors.
It do not yet disturb, but it is there.

This is when using diesel only, I have no real experience about additives.
And how do they react in different situations.

[Thecastle]

Originally Posted by tuikku

.



Mods:
Hybrid turbo gt2260, made by Anton Murola/Hevosvoima.com
535d injectors
Very big cooler
Bigger downpipe, egr/dpf/cat removed.
Egr delete kit
Stiffer valve springs, gift from Alex
(Also modded transm.+Quaife)
Softw my own.

Quick question, why did you switch to stiffer valve springs? Where you experiencing valve float from too much back pressure due to too small of turbines on the stock turbos? Or was it for my rpm had room?